After derailment, Amtrak finally to install video cameras in locomotives

On Tuesday, Amtrak announced that it would be putting video cameras inside of locomotive cabs as a way to monitor the actions of train engineers.

The decision comes just weeks after a train derailment outside Philadelphia, which resulted in the deaths of eight people and over 200 injuries. For years, Amtrak has had outward-facing cameras on locomotives, along with sensors for both the locomotive itself and actions taken by the engineer.

"Inward-facing video cameras will help improve safety and serve as a valuable investigative tool," Amtrak President & CEO Joe Boardman said in a statement. "We have tested these cameras and will begin installation as an additional measure to enhance safety."

Surveillance video inside locomotive cabs was recommended by the National Transportation Safety Board in 2010, but it was never realized. Train unions have historically opposed the measure.

"Installation of cameras will provide the public nothing more than a false sense of security," Dennis Pierce, president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, said in a statement after a December 2013 commuter train crash in the Bronx, New York, where the engineer was later found to have fallen asleep. "More than a century of research establishes that monitoring workers actually reduces the ability to perform complex tasks, such as operating a train, because of the distractive effect."

According to the Associated Press, Boardman said in a call with reporters that cameras would be initially installed within 70 new Amtrak locomotives traveling on both the Northeast Regional line, which runs from Washington, DC to Boston, and the Keystone Service between New York, Philadelphia, and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

In total, 38 locomotives are slated to get the cameras before the end of 2015, with the rest coming early in 2016. Boardman added that there are eventual plans to install such cameras across all 373 Amtrak locomotives.

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is out now from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

Dennis Pierce, president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, said in a statement "More than a century of research establishes that monitoring workers actually reduces the ability to perform complex tasks, such as operating a train, because of the distractive effect."

Um, they're already been monitored.

Quote:

For years, Amtrak has had outward-facing cameras on locomotives, along with sensors for both the locomotive itself and actions taken by the engineer.

I have a better idea. Have a computer control the train throttle to keep it from speeding. You can put a "dead man's switch" on the throttle so that the driver can override the speed limit only if he keeps his hand on the controls.

Unless there will be somebody, somewhere watching the actions of every engineer in real time (and given Amtrak's tight budget this sounds highly unlikely) these new cameras will only be good for after-the-fact accident investigations. This is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to give a false sense of security.

If internal cameras degrade engineer performance, then it's worth thinking about why the cameras are needed. Will the stress and perhaps poorer response time in a crisis caused by cameras be eclipsed by the reduced likelyhood of speeding?

I have a better idea. Have a computer control the train throttle to keep it from speeding. You can put a "dead man's switch" on the throttle so that the driver can override the speed limit only if he keeps his hand on the controls.

I appreciate them spending money to add hardware that will better let them know what happened in an accident after the fact, instead of spending the money to install hardware to prevent future accidents.

Unless there will be somebody, somewhere watching the actions of every engineer in real time (and given Amtrak's tight budget this sounds highly unlikely) these new cameras will only be good for after-the-fact accident investigations. This is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to give a false sense of security.

While I'll buy the idea of false sense of security in that it won't necessarily prevent (on it's own) future accidents, it's like recording airplane cockpit conversations & such. It can provide an invaluable tool for investigators to find out why an accident occurred.

This makes sense, but I'm all for strict rules on usage of such footage. Live viewing only during an emergency, and can't be reviewed except for a specific complaint against the engineer or after an incident/accident.

Well, they're still rolling out the automated speed limiters, so it's not like they didn't think of it -- they lacked funding and bandwidth.

The wreck in Philly was horrific, and we had to deal with some severe injuries (though the bulk of the trauma I saw were shockingly minor for people involved in a 106-MPH wreck). It's tragic we were SO close to having positive train control online at the bend.

I appreciate them spending money to add hardware that will better let them know what happened in an accident after the fact, instead of spending the money to install hardware to prevent future accidents.

They were already spending the money to install hardware to prevent this from happening. It's just they hadn't gotten to that section of the track yet. Not to say with more money they wouldn't have gotten to that section sooner, but it was already planned and scheduled.

I have a better idea. Have a computer control the train throttle to keep it from speeding. You can put a "dead man's switch" on the throttle so that the driver can override the speed limit only if he keeps his hand on the controls.

If internal cameras degrade engineer performance, then it's worth thinking about why the cameras are needed. Will the stress and perhaps poorer response time in a crisis caused by cameras be eclipsed by the reduced likelyhood of speeding?

I have a better idea. Have a computer control the train throttle to keep it from speeding. You can put a "dead man's switch" on the throttle so that the driver can override the speed limit only if he keeps his hand on the controls.

Why would a camera degrade performance? It isn't in the way and doesn't require an engineer to do anything. Now that said, it is also probably completely useless in terms of preventing an accident.

And airplanes have both voice recorders and action recorders, so while pilots are not on camera, their activities are recorded.

I appreciate them spending money to add hardware that will better let them know what happened in an accident after the fact, instead of spending the money to install hardware to prevent future accidents.

They were already spending the money to install hardware to prevent this from happening. It's just they hadn't gotten to that section of the track yet. Not to say with more money they wouldn't have gotten to that section sooner, but it was already planned and scheduled.

I am told (by someone I know and trust who is in a position to know) that the holdup for ACSES on this stretch of track wasn't financial but working through the process of RF frequency allocation from the FCC.

I do agree with them when they say it'll create a false sense of security. A real sense of security can only be created by investing in modern train control and safety systems - the European ERTMS/ETCS standard has already been developed and refined, to the point that many non-European countries such as Australia, China, India, Korea and Mexico are also deploying it.

I lol at this "cameras provided false sense of security." Cameras are an alert mechanism. It doesnt enforce security it provides resources to appropriately use other tools to enforce security. Like showing the guard there is an intruder, and he hits the lockdown button. In this same use. It doesnt provide security, it provides evidence to see if your actual security is working. It also provides evidence of negligence which management wants no one to have the option of checking.

I have a better idea. Have a computer control the train throttle to keep it from speeding. You can put a "dead man's switch" on the throttle so that the driver can override the speed limit only if he keeps his hand on the controls.

Unless there will be somebody, somewhere watching the actions of every engineer in real time (and given Amtrak's tight budget this sounds highly unlikely) these new cameras will only be good for after-the-fact accident investigations. This is nothing more than a knee jerk reaction to give a false sense of security.

I have a better idea. Have a computer control the train throttle to keep it from speeding. You can put a "dead man's switch" on the throttle so that the driver can override the speed limit only if he keeps his hand on the controls.

Trains are a lot more dangerous than people know. The scheduling is actually done on a "by the seat of your pants" basis. Working in trains I have learned that the fact we don't have more accidents is a small miracle in and of itself. However, as for having a "dead man's switch" it isn't needed. There is a button the engineer must press at least once every thirty seconds or the train will auto brake.

I have a better idea. Have a computer control the train throttle to keep it from speeding. You can put a "dead man's switch" on the throttle so that the driver can override the speed limit only if he keeps his hand on the controls.

I have a better idea. Have a computer control the train throttle to keep it from speeding. You can put a "dead man's switch" on the throttle so that the driver can override the speed limit only if he keeps his hand on the controls.

I have a better idea. Have a computer control the train throttle to keep it from speeding. You can put a "dead man's switch" on the throttle so that the driver can override the speed limit only if he keeps his hand on the controls.

Why they can't use some other band...I don't know. Typically railroads use the 2-meter band (160-162MHz) for communications, defect-detectors, and some EOT (End Of Train) devices...seems like they ought to be able to implement the train control system on low power 160-MHz range too. They have 94-96 channels to pick from, possibly more with narrow-banding.

I lol at this "cameras provided false sense of security." Cameras are an alert mechanism. It doesnt enforce security it provides resources to appropriately use other tools to enforce security. Like showing the guard there is an intruder, and he hits the lockdown button. In this same use. It doesnt provide security, it provides evidence to see if your actual security is working. It also provides evidence of negligence which management wants no one to have the option of checking.

And information useful in understanding how your policies and safety measures went wrong; makint it possible to engineer changes to improve future safety.

From "The plane crashed", there's nothing you can know to do to stop the next one from crashing. You need details of how and why. Same with trains or anything else.

This makes sense, but I'm all for strict rules on usage of such footage. Live viewing only during an emergency, and can't be reviewed except for a specific complaint against the engineer or after an incident/accident.

I'm not sure I understand why. My boss sits behind me with a glass wall. All that I do while at my workstation can be easily seen. I don't see this as a problem.

This is my workspace and I am accountable for what I do. If I want some privacy, I step away from my desk.

I have a better idea. Have a computer control the train throttle to keep it from speeding. You can put a "dead man's switch" on the throttle so that the driver can override the speed limit only if he keeps his hand on the controls.

They already have a mandate to install a system like that, called Positive Train Control, by the end of this year. They've already installed it on some sections of track. Why it wasn't first installed on the most dangerous sections (the sharpest curves, the most rapid drop in speed limits, etc.) is a question I wish someone would ask, perhaps a Congressional hearing?

I have a friend who was a train engineer (driver). He worked for Amtrack, with long cargo trains etc. he admits that he fell asleep a number of times while on duty, and that every driver he knew over the 35 years he was working fell asleep at some time. He usually prefaces telling us that with; "I'm not proud of it, but..."

In fact, he tells of one time when he almost had a major accident, and almost took out a major station in a city, I won't mention which one. He was very lucky, according to him.

He also tells that drivers regularly block the deadman sticks used to slow, and stop, a train if the driver falls asleep. It seems to me that the union knows all of this very well, and just doesn't want monitoring to prevent it, because so many of their members do it. We can be pretty sure that the union leaders who are against this fell asleep when they were at the controls.

What amazes me is that more accidents as a result of sleep, and other inattention, such as drivers reading, don't occur.

I have a friend who was a train engineer (driver). He worked for Amtrack, with long cargo trains etc. he admits that he fell asleep a number of times while on duty, and that every driver he knew over the 35 years he was working fell asleep at some time. He usually prefaces telling us that with; "I'm not proud of it, but..."

In fact, he tells of one time when he almost had a major accident, and almost took out a major station in a city, I won't mention which one. He was very lucky, according to him.

He also tells that drivers regularly block the deadman sticks used to slow, and stop, a train if the driver falls asleep. It seems to me that the union knows all of this very well, and just doesn't want monitoring to prevent it, because so many of their members do it. We can be pretty sure that the union leaders who are against this fell asleep when they were at the controls.

What amazes me is that more accidents as a result of sleep, and other inattention, such as drivers reading, don't occur.

I have a friend who was a train engineer (driver). He worked for Amtrack, with long cargo trains etc. he admits that he fell asleep a number of times while on duty, and that every driver he knew over the 35 years he was working fell asleep at some time. He usually prefaces telling us that with; "I'm not proud of it, but..."

In fact, he tells of one time when he almost had a major accident, and almost took out a major station in a city, I won't mention which one. He was very lucky, according to him.

He also tells that drivers regularly block the deadman sticks used to slow, and stop, a train if the driver falls asleep. It seems to me that the union knows all of this very well, and just doesn't want monitoring to prevent it, because so many of their members do it. We can be pretty sure that the union leaders who are against this fell asleep when they were at the controls.

What amazes me is that more accidents as a result of sleep, and other inattention, such as drivers reading, don't occur.

It can't possibly be a problem:

If they install all of the automatic overrides that are present in rails in some other countries, or the ones they been trying to get in place here, then maybe. But we have forces in this country who are strongly against commuter rail, and have been for decades, though not as strongly as the past 15 years. They prevent the funding to get this done quickly, and properly. Right after a major disaster, something gets done briefly, but the monetary issue comes up again, and progress halts. That's what we have here.

I have a better idea. Have a computer control the train throttle to keep it from speeding. You can put a "dead man's switch" on the throttle so that the driver can override the speed limit only if he keeps his hand on the controls.

Positive Train Control is supposedly coming by the end of the year. It's a mandate, which most railroads will not meet; Amtrak claims it will meet the deadline.

As a software engineer that works on trains I can honestly say that I hate, hate, HATE PTC. No, this is not the magic bullet you're looking for. Your solution is in another castle.

Could you elaborate? I'm sure we'd all benefit from having an insider's perspective on PTC's weakness's/shortcomings since it's being billed as the ultimate solution in the wake of this crash.

First, you have to understand that a train's schedule is, for the most part, by the seat of your pants. A mining train will actually head out the moment it is ready to go; there is not scheduled start time. Outside of a commuter train most trains operate like this. And, from the work I've done, I think it is a small miracle that we don't hear of more head on collisions.

Now, don't get me wrong; the idea is good in theory. But take a second to think about the government writing the requirements for an extremely complicated system built around trains that have no real schedule to speak of. If that doesn't spell doom then I don't know what does.

Anyhow, I'd thought about going into detail about some of the crap we've had to do to even get this system semi-useable but then I ran into this little gem of an article from two years ago. It is a bit dated but will give you a really good idea about the problems with PTC which will give you an idea of the problems we've faced.

EDIT : Check out LEADER and AutoHaul. This kind of technology would do worlds more good than the government mandated PTC.

I have a better idea. Have a computer control the train throttle to keep it from speeding. You can put a "dead man's switch" on the throttle so that the driver can override the speed limit only if he keeps his hand on the controls.

Positive Train Control is supposedly coming by the end of the year. It's a mandate, which most railroads will not meet; Amtrak claims it will meet the deadline.

As a software engineer that works on trains I can honestly say that I hate, hate, HATE PTC. No, this is not the magic bullet you're looking for. Your solution is in another castle.

Could you elaborate? I'm sure we'd all benefit from having an insider's perspective on PTC's weakness's/shortcomings since it's being billed as the ultimate solution in the wake of this crash.

First, you have to understand that a train's schedule is, for the most part, by the seat of your pants. A mining train will actually head out the moment it is ready to go; there is not scheduled start time. Outside of a commuter train most trains operate like this. And, from the work I've done, I think it is a small miracle that we don't hear of more head on collisions.

Now, don't get me wrong; the idea is good in theory. But take a second to think about the government writing the requirements for an extremely complicated system built around trains that have no real schedule to speak of. If that doesn't spell doom then I don't know what does.

Anyhow, I'd thought about going into detail about some of the crap we've had to do to even get this system semi-useable but then I ran into this little gem of an article from two years ago. It is a bit dated but will give you a really good idea about the problems with PTC which will give you an idea of the problems we've faced.

Schedule shouldn't matter. With GPS the system knows where the train is, and how fast the train is moving, and should also know the speed limit on that section of track. If the actual speed is greater than the speed limit, apply the brakes. No schedule needed.

No, aircraft don't currently have cameras, however, the NTSB has recommended they be installed. A number of accidents have occurred where a camera in the cockpit would have at least clarified what happened. However, the pilot unions have pushed back, so they haven't been installed. One of the big concerns does seem to be management using the footage to monitor the pilots day-to-day rather than just after an accident like with the voice and flight data recorders, and fears that the footage would leak out (some pilots with a black sense of humour may not go over well when taken out of context by the public). Although maybe some form of encryption could be used so that only the NTSB, black box and aircraft manufacturers can access the footage would alleviate these fears.

I will second the notion that PTC is a nightmare. Comparing ERTMS and ATC (known and KVB in France) these technologies have been around for decades (late 1980's in Sweden) and should have been implemented here.

Between 2005 and 2009 on my four trips to Sweden, as a railway/signaling/radio enthusiast, shortline conductor, and on track equipment operator I was absolutely impressed with the ATC system. It is simple, easy to implement, install, and use.

After the Metrolink disaster in 2008 that started all this mandated PTC stuff here, I remember comparing how simple ATC would have been to install here. PTC has just too many 'links in the chain' that make the system overly complex to the point that if any one of the three radio systems goes down the whole system goes into a protected mode.

I have been watching closely the major railroads setup their versions of the systems with their lineside and train mounted antenna arrays, new signals and in cab computers. It really is turning into an eyesore with every signal having a radio antenna. And don't get me wrong, I like antennas as I am an Amateur radio operator too. Radio frequencies used now include Low-band (44MHz), VHF for voice (160-162MHz), the PTC system itself (220MHz), GPS (1.575GHz), and 2.4GHz (at least on UP). The Swedish ATC system only uses one frequency in the 27MHz band and the link is only for about 2-3 feet and good up to 150+MPH. ERTMS on the other hand is good up to over 200MPH.

The testing is already being conducted on the UP (I am sure the others back east are doing the same) with the PTC system, but I fear it will have its growing pains just as all new systems do.

ATC on the other hand uses only one radio frequency between the track beacon mounted between the running rails and the chassis mounted pickup antenna on the train, and it is very short distance making interference almost non-existent.

The US has a law that we have to 'Buy American' if it involves federal infrastructure, one of the reasons we couldn't buy off the shelf ES 64 U locomotives for Amtrak, we 'had' to build our own and build them here. The FRA was also concerned about crash worthiness with the ES series, but that could have been addressed in manufacturing.

My point is, that there was a solution for overspeed, braking, and safe signal passage out there that was dynamic, expandable, ready to implement, and simple. ATC was the answer 25+ years ago. We could have had this system here to prevent most speed and signal violations.

I am ashamed no one here in the US decided to look (or are allowed to look) outside its own borders for a simple solution years ago that would have absolutely prevented this recent disaster whether it be a system or human fault. Face it, off the shelf technologies existed, but were never thought of by our corporations that run American railroads.

The US has a real issue of letting ideas and programs cross this silly border of ours. Another topic for another time is Eurovision....why can't we watch it here??!??!?

This makes sense, but I'm all for strict rules on usage of such footage. Live viewing only during an emergency, and can't be reviewed except for a specific complaint against the engineer or after an incident/accident.

I'm not sure I understand why. My boss sits behind me with a glass wall. All that I do while at my workstation can be easily seen. I don't see this as a problem.

This is my workspace and I am accountable for what I do. If I want some privacy, I step away from my desk.

I'm sure that's wonderful for you and your boss. In my experience, plenty of productive people don't work that way. Sometimes there is great value in the grey areas of life. Probably not in a train conductor's seat, but other places certainly. Some of our great digital tech breakthroughs were done on the sly.

For decades now, 'increasing transparency' has been sought with no little regard for the downsides. Our surveillance states will fast get out of hand if we don't draw better boundaries. Information is power.

No, aircraft don't currently have cameras, however, the NTSB has recommended they be installed. A number of accidents have occurred where a camera in the cockpit would have at least clarified what happened. However, the pilot unions have pushed back, so they haven't been installed. One of the big concerns does seem to be management using the footage to monitor the pilots day-to-day rather than just after an accident like with the voice and flight data recorders, and fears that the footage would leak out (some pilots with a black sense of humour may not go over well when taken out of context by the public). Although maybe some form of encryption could be used so that only the NTSB, black box and aircraft manufacturers can access the footage would alleviate these fears.

"Installation of cameras will provide the public nothing more than a false sense of security," Dennis Pierce, president of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, said in a statement after a December 2013 commuter train crash in the Bronx, New York, where the engineer was later found to have fallen asleep. "More than a century of research establishes that monitoring workers actually reduces the ability to perform complex tasks, such as operating a train, because of the distractive effect."

Item 1 --YES because companies have been using video cameras for 100 years to surveil their employees.

Huge difference between someone standing in the office looking over your shoulder while you perform your every move and a non-invasive camera that is just there that the worker eventually just accepts as being there and does their job.

Retail Companies have had in-store cameras for 2 decades and if you see any employee being lazy or their productivity dropping it's probably more to do with the fact that they are LAZY FRAKS and not because of the cameras watching them being stupid. How the Locomotive industry could possible be above any other industry and say that crap with a straight face is ridiculous.

Item 2 --As for the public havinga false "sense of security" -- complete bullshit. First the cameras are there so the Engineers will be aware of them and be more likely to NOT fall asleep or show up drunk or go have sex or eat a 6 course meal while they're fucking driving a train. And second -- there will now be evidence in cases against them for negligence if they do fuck up. Here's video proof that your Engineer tried to have sex with the throttle control during that high speed turn.